comparison of jatropha curcas profitability to selected crops in

7/28/2019 Comparison of Jatropha Curcas Profitability to Selected Crops In

1/14

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online)

Vol.4, No.8, 2013

141

Comparison ofJatropha Curcas Profitability To Selected Crops In

Yatta District, Kenya

Carol Munini Munyao1, Dr. Fred Muisu

1,Jacob Mbego

1, Dr. Nehemiah Kiprutto

2

1 School of Natural Resources Management, University of Eldoret PO Box 1125-30100, Eldoret, Kenya

2 School of Tourism, Hospitality & Events management, Moi University PO Box 3900-30100, Eldoret,

Kenya

* Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper examines the viability of Jatropha curcas production focusing on the economic impacts on

smallholder farmers in Yatta District. The study employed causal-comparative research design and quantitative

research method was used where questionnaires were administered to 240 respondents selected through

multi-stage sampling technique. Gross Margin Calculation was undertaken to compare the profitability of

Jatropha cultivation to main crops where means of both gross margins were compared using paired sample t-tests

statistic. It was found that gross margin for Jatropha grown in the three different modes was found to be

significantly lower compared to pigeon peas and bean. Therefore it is important for farmers to make a balanced

choice in using their limited land to engage in Jatropha production before proper policies on biofuels are put in

place to ensure high yields, avoid the risks of poor market conditions and increased consumption of biofuels in

the country.

KeywordsBiofuels, Gross Margin Calculation, Jatropha curcas, Kenya, profitability, Yatta District

1. Introduction

The current debate on climate change and rising oil prices has generated a great deal of interest in renewable

energy resources such as biofuels. All developing countries desire to be industrialized including Kenya which

aspires to be industrialized by 2030 (GOK, 2010). Unfortunately, most of these developing countries have adopted

the prevailing model in industrialized countries characterized by over-reliance on fossil fuels. However these fuels

are environmentally malignant and the prices are very unstable and rising (Goldenberg & Johansson, 1995). Liquid

fuels derived from biomass (herein referred to as biofuels) are emerging as alternative fuels that could help manage

the problem of the ever-increasing demand of oil thus providing energy security, mitigate the environmental

problems arising from use of fossil fuels and stimulate rural development in Africa (Yamba, 2007).

In recent years, the production of Jatropha curcas has been widely promoted by private enterprises,

non-governmental organizations and development agencies as one of the most viable candidates for biodiesel

feedstock in Africa. While multiple benefits ofJatropha production such as a petroleum product substitute,

greenhouse gas mitigation and rural development are emphasized, the viability of production at farm level is

questioned.

Jatropha production has been promoted for its perceived economic and ecological advantages. Thus Jatropha

appears to be the potential crop that enables win-win relationship among all the actors in the value chain the

biofuel industry to gain profit, society as a whole to achieve GHG mitigation and energy security, and theproducers to improve their livelihoods. Benefit to local farmers in small-scaleJatropha production is based on


2/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

142

the profitability ofJatropha seed production as a farm enterprise. The biofuel industry is interested in Jatropha

production because it is expected to be less expensive feedstock. Viability ofJatropha production in current

Kenyan market conditions is by examining the price competitiveness ofJatropha in the market and the

profitability ofJatropha production as a biodiesel feedstock in terms of expected yield, revenue and opportunity

cost of production.

There is therefore an urgent need to determine if it is a rational choice for smallholder Kenyan farmers to engage

in Jatropha production under the current economic situation. The objectives in this paper are to compare the

profitability ofJatropha production to selected crops in Yatta District, Kenya focusing on the economic impacts

on smallholder farmers who engage in the production.

2. Literature review

2.1 IntroductionJatropha a member of the Euphorbiaceous family is a plant of Latin American origin but currently widespread

throughout the tropical regions of the world. It is a drought resistant, perennial plant living up to 50 years,

relatively fast growing and can achieve a height of three meters within three years under a variety of growing

conditions (Openshaw, 2000). Jatropha plant is reported to have more than 1600 uses such as soil erosion

control, climate protection, varnishes, illuminants, soap, organic insecticide and medicine for skin diseases,

cancer, piles, snakebites, paralysis, dropsy and many more (Henning, 2002). Various parts of the plant have

medicinal value, its bark contains tannin, the flowers attract bees thus the plant has honey production, the seed

cake is an excellent source of plant nutrients and its wood and fruit parts are used for fuel. Like all trees,

Jatropha removes carbon from the atmosphere, stores it in the woody tissues and assists in the build-up of soil

carbon (Anant, 2008).

2.2 Comparing profitability of Jatropha curcas to food crops

Profitability ofJatropha and food crops is compared using GMC a tool used by farmers to help in choosing

between different farming systems. It is used to help evaluate the competitiveness of growing Jatropha as

compared to growing other types of subsistent crops. A gross margin of a crop is the difference between the

gross income earned by the crop and the variable or direct costs associated with it (Abbott and Makeham, 1979).

For semi-subsistence farmers food security might be more important than gross margins but if a crop has very

high gross margin, then it is advisable to grow it and buy food from the returns. Therefore ifJatropha has very

high gross margin than food crops then it can replace them and its returns used to buy food.

An estimate of costs and returns from cultivation ofJatropha plantations/hedgerows scenarios is crucial to

analyzing its adoption in rural areas. Costs, as well as returns are involved at different stages of the growing and

harvesting ofJatropha. For farmers to adopt Jatropha cultivation, the plant must be more profitable than the

traditional crops farmers are already used to (Van Eijck, 2006). A study done in Tanzania in 2006 indicated that

Jatropha crop is more profitable than traditional crops such as maize, wheat bananas among others which led to

high adoption ofJatropha cultivation in Arusha region. Jatropha realized annual revenue of KShs 219,558 per

acre which was higher compared to maize that produced annual revenue of KShs 22,884 per acre (Van Eijck,

2006). However, Mitchell (2008) pointed out that Sun Biofuel Company in Tanzania estimated annual Jatropha

profits to range between 9,720KShs/acre 19,440KShs/acre which is lower than profit estimations of Van Eijck

(2006). In India, Rao et al. (2006) reported highest revenue ofJatropha per acre per year as KShs 43,800.


3/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

143

Profitability ofJatropha is influenced by buying prices and variable costs such as, labor costs in management

practices undertaken and input costs since they differ in most regions.

In Kenya, it was reported that revenues from selected cash crops such as mango, green grams and potatoes

among others were higher than that ofJatropha. Annual gross margin per hectare for green grams was KShs

16,654, for potatoes it was KShs 101,334 and for mango it was KShs 25,200 while that ofJatropha ranged

between KShs 10,893 KShs 13,072 (Yuka and Swallow, 2007). Jatropha gross margin in the country is lower

than most traditional crops hence the low adoption.

Cost of production ofJatropha is influenced by management practices undertaken and varies greatly with

authors and regions. According to Van Eijck (2006) the annual costs of production per acre in Tanzania was

found to be KShs 100 while in India, Rao et al., (2006) indicated it was KShs 1,200. However, Wahl et al.,

(2009) pointed out that the annual operating costs for one hectare ofJatropha in Tanzania and India were found

to be approximately KShs 6,073 and while in China to be KShs 12,145. High costs of production reduce the end

revenues and therefore influencing adoption.

2.3 Jatropha curcas yields

Yields fromJatropha have an influence adoption as they directly impact on revenues. High yields lead to high

revenues and low yields lead to low revenue. Reported yields forJatropha differ worldwide. Openshaw (2000)

mentions a variation in seed production in monocrop to range between 0.4tonnes/ha/yr to over 12tonnes/ha/yr

with a number of plants per hectare varying from 1100 to 3300. In addition, Heller (1996) and Jones and Miller

(1992) summarized Jatropha yields with an even larger variation in seed yield, from 0.1 tonnes/ha/yr to 15

tonnes/ha/yr. On average, a mature monocrop plantation would yield 4.8tonnes/ha/yr. A Jatropha project in

Tanzania reported seed yields to be higher with a variation of 5tonnes/ha/yr to 25tonnes/ha/yr or 2kg/plant/yr to

10 kg/plant/yr. In Mali, whereJatropha was planted as a hedgerow at a spacing of 1m 1m, the reported yield

was 2.5 tonnes/ha/year and 3.5 tonnes /ha/year (Henning, 2002). Jatropha yields are influenced by climatic

conditions and management practices.

In optimal conditions, Jatropha should yield seeds of up to 8tons/ha/yr resulting in oil yields of up to

2.2tons/ha/yr (Henning, 2006). National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) in Lucknow came up with a high

yielding HybridJatropha cultivar in 2006 which would yield up to 17.25tons/ha/yr of seeds at a planting density

of 2475 trees per hectare and spacing of 2m 2m (PTI, 2007). Improved seed varieties have the potential of

increasing oil and nut yields.

2.4 Jatropha curcas markets

Market availability is one of the key aspects that influence profitability ofJatropha cultivation. Farmers should

be able to sell harvests to ready buyers or process seeds themselves in order to intensify Jatropha cultivation

(Tattersall, 2007). In Tanzania, the availability of ready market forJatropha seeds to either Kakute or Diligent

which are NGOs based in Arusha region has led to more farmers engage in cultivation. Market accessibility and

availability, market prices and grain bags are important factors to take into account for Jatropha trading

(Mitchell, 2008).

To enhance returns ofJatropha produce, it is important to have a complete value chain with manifold

stakeholders involved and their roles well established. In Tanzania for example, there are NGOs promoting


4/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

144

Jatropha cultivation, farmer cooperatives, organizations doing extension services and business support, oil

extraction plants, buying organizations, and political institutions supporting renewable energies (Mitchell, 2008).

Mitchell (2008) pointed out that in Tanzania trained women groups on soap production provided substantial

market forJatropha nuts. KAMA Herbal Products Ltd. a private company run by several shareholders helped to

market the herbal soaps based on Jatropha oil in the national and international market. In Tanzania mbinga

region, nuns pressed Jatropha nuts into pure oil for running gensets of a twelve building complex of the

Vincentian Sisters in Mbinga providing market forJatropha nuts (Muller, 2007). Value chain development

through increased out-grower schemes can be applied to solve the problem of market unavailability.

While in Mali higher adoption ofJatropha cultivation in the 90s was attributed to farmers in a small village of

Simiji trained on how to crushJatropha plant seeds and extracting the oil (Tattersall, 2007). This provided huge

market forJatropha nuts in Mali and subsequently village residents found a renewable power source that does

not conflict with the local food supply. Oil from the Jatropha plant powered a small generator and the Simiji

village was provided with enough power to run 40 streetlights and give 60 families power at night (Henning,

2006). Availing technology on Jatropha by-products processing to farmers or establishment of accessible

Jatropha oil extraction plants would increaseJatropha nuts markets thus more revenue.

3. Study Area

3.1 Location and size

Yatta District covers an estimated area of 2497 Km2

and is located within a latitude of -1.47 (1 28' 0 S) and a

longitude of 37.83 (37 49' 60 E). The district borders Thika District to the North Western side, Kitui and

Mwingi districts to the Eastern side, Machakos District to the Southern side, Maragwa District to the North and

Mbeere District to the North Eastern side. Figure 3.1, indicates the geographical location of the study area inKenya.

3.2 Climatic conditions

Yatta district lies in Zone V of the Agro-climatic classification of Kenya. Suffice to emphasize this, most parts of

Kenya lie in the ASAL zones and they experience perennials droughts, which make it unsuitable for agriculture

and thereforeJatropha curcas cultivation would be timely since the plant can withstand dry conditions.

The climate of Yatta district is generally warm and dry during most part of the year except for some torrential and

erratic rains experienced in the months of March and December. The mean monthly temperature ranges from 290C

in the coldest months to 36

0

C in the hottest months resulting in low or no yields in rain-fed agriculture. Despitethese low yields, agriculture remains an important source of livelihood in the district currently. The topography of

the district is varied and rises from 500 m above sea level on the southern part of the district to 1200 m above sea

level in the northern part. There are two rainy seasons, the long and the short rains. The annual average rainfall

varies from 350-600 mm with high attitude areas receiving more rainfall than low attitude regions. However there

has been gradual decline of rainfall since 1992 (GOK, 2004).

3.3 Research design

This study is descriptive in nature and causal-comparative research design was employed. Both quantitative and

qualitative research methods were applied. The quantitative research method entailed use of household (HH)

questionnaires and weighing machine while the qualitative research method entailed in-depth interviews, Focus

Group Discussions and observations. A systematic and objective approach to the study entailed discussions


5/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

145

with supervisors, pre-testing and revision of questionnaires, the execution of the field data collection, data

coding & entry and analysis as shown in Figure 1.

3.4 Sampling method

A multi-stage sampling technique was applied in this study whereby Yatta District was selected purposively since

it was one of the districts where Jatropha activities were undertaken by promoting agencies. Cluster sampling

method was employed to select Yatta and Masinga divisions purposively because they had the highest number of

promoting agencies present. Cluster sampling method was further used to choose four locations randomly in the

selected divisions. Systematic sampling was used to pick 2 sub- locations from each location whereby first and

third names were singled out from each list containing the names of sub-locations in a location provided at the

district resources center giving a total of 8 sub-locations. One village was selected from each sub-location on the

basis of its location where the east most village was picked. Selection of respondents from each village was done

through systematic randomly sampling method. Village shopping centers were used as beginning points then

heading west and following identified village roads or paths households were picked at intervals of five wherebyafter selecting the first household, 5 households were skipped then the sixth household selected as second

household the process was repeated until 30 households were picked in each of the 8 villages.

3.5 Data collection

Primary data was collected using a well structured household questionnaire and in-depth interviews employing

personal contact with government officials and NGO officials. Hanging weigh scale was used to estimate the

weights ofJatropha yields per farm while data on variable cost of production of the main agricultural crops in

the district, costs ofJatropha production and yields forJatropha planted in monocrop and intercrop modes,

population, socio-economic activities in the district and climatic conditions of Yatta district was obtained from

secondary sources including government reports, annual reports, research papers, study reports, and books.

3.6 Hypothesis testing

Where;

1 Mean gross margin ofJatropha

2 Mean gross margins of main crops in Yatta District

Gross Margin Calculations (GMC) was undertaken to compare the profitability ofJatropha cultivation to main

crops where means of both gross margins were compared. The wages of permanent workers and depreciation of

machinery and land cost is normally left out when calculating the gross margins. Calculation of gross margins of

main crops and Jatropha grown in the three modes of cultivation (hedgerow, intercrop and monocrop) was

described as;

Gross margin = Gross income Variable costs

H0: 1 = 2

H1: 1 2


6/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

146

Where:

Gross income = Annual yield/tree 15 stocking density

Average annual yields per tree for different ages were estimated as;

x = (K/Ji)/n

Where;

x - Average yield per tree per year

K Yields obtained per farm

J Number ofJatropha trees in the farm

i Years of growth

n Number of farmers

To estimate the gross margin forJatropha the following assumptions were made:

1. One kilometer ofJatropha hedgerow had a stocking density of 1000 trees2. One acre ofJatropha monocrop farm had a stocking density of 1000trees3. One acre ofJatropha intercrop farm had a stocking density of 1250 trees4. The farm gate price of one kilogram ofJatropha nuts was 15KShs

Variable costsare costs directly linked to a crop incurred every year of planting and they include cost of seeds,

spraying, watering, harvesting, packing marketing, storage among others. Yields and costs of production for

monocrop and intercrop farms were obtained from ICRAF (2008) due to unavailability of information in the

district. This was so becauseJatropha plants in these farms during data collection were all less than one year old

and had not fruited in Yatta District. Paired-sample t-test statistic was used to compare gross margin means and

tables were used to present the results.

4. Results

4.1Comparison of profitability of Jatropha curcas with main cropsGross margins obtained from growingJatropha in the three modes of cultivation that is monocrop, intercrop and

hedgerow was compared with gross margins obtained from major crops in Yatta District. This was achieved by

providing variable costs, yield produced and revenues obtained for all crops then calculating gross margins.

4.2 Main crops in Yatta District

Subsistence crop farming was one of the socio-economic activities related to land use in Yatta District. Maize

was the commonest crop grown by 86.9% of farmers while 10.4% and 2.7% grew beans and pigeon peas as their

main crops respectively.

Maize was mainly grown for consumption purposes because it can withstand the dry conditions and thus assistfarmers in coping with frequent famines. The choice to grow maize was as a result of cultural considerations


7/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

147

rather than economic preferences. Maize did not have good market price with a 90-kilogram bag selling at KShs

900 compared to pigeon peas at KShs 2,000 per 90-kilogram bag and beans at KShs 5,000 per 90-kilogram bag.

It was found that there was a large variation in the productivity and production costs among the three main crops,

as exemplified by the gross incomes and variable costs reported in Table 1.

Variable cost of maize was found to be KShs 4,290 per acre while that of beans was KShs 6,728 per acre and

lastly pigeon peas were KShs 7,722 per acre (GOK 2006).

4.3 Estimated cost of Jatropha curcas production

Variable costs incurred in the production ofJatropha grown as a hedgerow, intercrop and as monocrop over an

8-year period are provided in Table 2. Monocrop and intercrop data was secondary data obtained from regions in

the same agro-climatic zone as Yatta district and therefore only used to indicate expected the trends.

At planting, hedgerow costs were very low at KShs 1,225 compared to reported costs elsewhere for intercrop at

KShs 6,177 and monocrop costs at KShs 10,314. All the variable costs in the different modes of cultivation

decreased as the plants matured.

4.4 Jatropha curcas yields in Yatta District

Yields reported in Yatta District were significantly lower compared to yields reported in other parts in the same

agro-climatic conditions in the country. The observed yield per tree at maturity (8+ years) in Yatta District was

0.125Kg/tree much lower compared to the reported yield of 0.361Kg/tree from other parts of the country asillustrated in Figure 2. The highest observed yield of from year 1 to year 8+ was found to be much lower than the

highest yields reported under the same agro-climatic conditions.

Yields in kilograms per tree in the three different modes of cultivation were as shown in Table 3.Jatropha yields

for monocrop and intercrop were secondary data obtained from ICRAF (2008) reported from other parts of the

country lying in same agro-climatic zone as Yatta District since that information was not available in Yatta

District and was therefore used to indicate expected trend. At maturity, monocrop mode of production had the

highest yields per tree per year at 0.555kg followed by intercrop at 0.165kg and lastly hedgerow at 0.125kg.

4.5 Gross margin of Jatropha curcas cultivation

As shown in Table 4, the gross margin forJatropha planted as a hedgerow was negative for the first three years

of production at KShs - 1225 shillings for the first year after planting and KShs - 104 shillings at year 3 of

growth indicating that losses were incurred. Positively from year 4, little profits were realized ranging from 330

shillings to 1625 shillings at maturity.

No expected profits for monocrop and intercropJatropha farms from planting to maturity assuming yields and

variable costs reported by ICRAF (2008). The gross margin was negative for monocrop as illustrated in Table 4

implying that farmers made losses of KShs 10,314 during the first year of growth and KShs 900 after maturity


8/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

148

per year. For intercrop, losses made during the first year of growth were approximately KShs 6,617 and KShs

2,463 losses realized after maturity per year.

4.6 Comparison of gross margins for main crops and Jatropha

Gross margin forJatropha grown as an intercrop, monocrop and hedgerow was lower than gross margin of KShs

2,278 for pigeon peas and KShs 3,272 for beans as indicated in Table 5. Growing Jatropha as monocrop and

intercrop did not realize any profits as opposed to the main crops.

Paired t-test statistic indicated that mean gross margin forJatropha when grown in the three different modes was

found to be significantly lower compared to that of pigeon peas and beans (t = 17.22, p = 0.000). However paired

t-test statistic revealed that mean gross margin ofJatropha grown as a hedgerow at maturity was significantly

higher compared to that of maize (t = 0.885, p = 0.385).

5. Discussion

5.1 Gross margin of Jatropha curcas cultivation

Economic viability ofJatropha production is a factor of production cost, yield, and market price. Farmers

decisions on adoptingJatropha production depend upon the returns that they expect to generate. Gross margin of

Jatropha was not competitive to cultivation of main crops leading to low adoption levels in Yatta District. The

comparison ofJatropha revenue with other food crops in Yatta District indicated that the production ofJatropha

is not a rational option under current economic condition and policy framework. This was as a result of its highcost of production especially for intercrop and monocrop Jatropha farmers and minimal yield and low market

prices ofJatropha nuts. Under such economical constraints Jatropha is unlikely to substantially increase

employment and income in rural areas. The shift from food crop to energy crop should especially be avoided in

semi-arid areas that experience production declines due to unpredictable and unstable rainfall.

Gross margin of food crops and Jatropha realized in Yatta District was far much lower compared to gross

margin of maize at 17,200KShs/acre/year and that ofJatropha at 13,200KShs/acre/year reported by Wahl et al.,

(2009) in Northern Tanzania. This could probably be due to poor climatic conditions in Yatta District compared

to Tanzania leading to very low yields due to poor management practices, low farm gate prices and lack of

market facilities leading to very lowJatropha prices.

Findings from this study agree with Yuka and Swallow (2007) who indicated that Jatropha plant is not

competitive compared to cash crops such as cashew nuts, mango and maize in addition ICRAF (2008) concur

with those findings that it is not profitable to grow Jatropha as an intercrop or monocrop in land that would

otherwise be used for food crops such as maize, beans. Further GOK (2006) agreed that the gross margins of

maize, beans and pigeon peas are higher than the gross margins ofJatropha in Yatta, Machakos County.

Considering the amount of attentionJatropha had received in the media, government, and the private sector, the

results were disheartening. Considering the annual gross margin of KShs 1625 from maturity ofJatropha grown

as a hedgerow and the negative gross margins obtained when planted as a monocrop or as intercrop implies thatplanting ofJatropha on farms where beans, cow peas or green grams could be grown would be an irrational


9/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

149

choice for the farmers. It is important for farmers to make a balanced choice in using their limited land therefore

farmers would be apt to engage inJatropha production only after proper policies on markets are put in place that

would be able to avoid the risks of poor market conditions and exploitation by market intermediaries. Cultivation

ofJatropha hedgerow may provide a supplementary income though the low yields realized would have negative

implications its profitability.

5.2 Yields from Jatropha curcas

A main factor determining the income gained from Jatropha cultivation is the yield influenced by mode of

cultivation. Jatropha yields grown as a hedgerow realized in Yatta District were too low compared yields

reported in other parts of the same agro-climatic conditions in the country and from around the world. Although

it was indicated that optimum yield for hedgerow dry areas in Kenya with no irrigation should be

2.5tonnes/acre/year at a spacing of 1m 1m (GTZ, 2008), the yields reported in Yatta District at the same

spacing were significantly low at 0.2tonnes per acre per year. Comparing these yields to India where Prajapati

and Prajapati (2005) estimated Jatropha yields in rain-fed and irrigated conditions to range from 1.2tonnes/acre/year under rain-fed conditions to 3.2 tonnes/acre/year under irrigated conditions yields in Yatta

District were minimal. Freim (2008) reported that Jatropha yield varies a great deal from 0.3 kg/tree/year to 12

kg/tree/year but indicated that average yield should be 6 kg/year/tree under optimum conditions at maturity.

The decimal performance ofJatropha trees in terms of seed yield was probably as a result of inadequate soil

moisture content; inadequate soil fertility or poor management practices on the Jatropha farms. From the

discussion above it is clear that althoughJatropha can grow in marginal areas, seed yields could be dependent on

soil fertility and management practices among other factors. From the yields obtained it is evident that Jatropha

will take some time before it becomes a reliable biodiesel feedstock.

6. Conclusion

Jatrophacurcas did not produce any profits when planted as a monocrop or as an intercrop and lower profits were

realized when Jatropha was grown as a hedgerow compared to pigeon peas and beans in Yatta District. In

conclusion,Jatropha cultivation was not profitable compared to main agricultural crops in Yatta district.

References

Abbott J.C. and Makeham J.P., (1979). Agricultural Economics and Marketing in the

Tropics. Intermediate Tropical Agricultural Series. Longman Group LTD,

London.

Anant, P., (2008). Biofuel and Rural Development biofuels for accelerating rural

development. In proceedings of the 5th conference on biofuels. February 78,

2008, New Delhi, India

Freim, O. L., (2009).How will small scale farmers in Zambia benefit from growing of

Jatropha?,Norwegian University of Life Science, Department of International

Environment and Development Studies, Master Thesis, 2008.

GOK, (2004). Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 on Energy. Ministry of Energy,


10/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

150

Government of Kenya, Nairobi.

GOK, (2010). Census report 2009. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and

National Development, Government of Kenya, Nairobi.

Goldenberg J. and Johansson T. B., (1995). Energy as an instrument of socio-economic

development. UNDP: New York.

GTZ, (2008). A roadmap for biofuels in Kenya: Opportunities & Obstacles. ESDA,

Nairobi

Henning, R.K., (2002). Using the Indigenous Knowledge ofJatropha. The use of

Jatropha oil as raw material and fuel. Local Pathways to Global Development. Indigenous Knowledge

Notes, 47, August. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Available at:www.worldbank.org/siteresources.pdf. (Accessed on 15

thJuly 2007).

Henning, R. (2006). Combating Desertification: TheJatropha Project of Mali, West

Africa. Arid Lands, http://www.cals.arizona.edu/ Jatropha.html (Accessed on 20th

September 2008)

Heller, J., (1996). Physic nut,Jatropha. Promoting the Conservation and Use of

Underutilized and Neglected Crops. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome,

Italy.

ICRAF, (2008). Assessment of the Agronomic and economic viability ofJatropha

and other oilseed crops in Kenya. Jatropha reality-check. Unpublished Report. Endelevu energy and

KEFRI, Nairobi.

Jones, N. and Millar, J. H., (1992).Jatropha: A multipurpose Species for

Problematic Sites, The World Bank, Washington DC USA.

Jongschaap, R.E.E., Corr, W.J., Bindraban, P.S. and Brandenburg, W.A., (2007).

Claims and Facts on Jatropha L. Global Jatropha evaluation, breeding and propagation

programme, Plant Research International B.V., Wageningen Stichting Het Groene Woudt, Laren.Report 158. October 2007.

Mitchell, A., (2008). The implications of smallholder cultivation of the biofuel crop,

Jatropha, for local food security and socioeconomic development in Northern Tanzania. MSc. Thesis in

Anthropology & Ecology of Development, University of London

Muller, A., (2007). A green oil for the world. Sun & Wind Energy. Vol 1 2007.

http://www.greenoil.finding/pdf, (Accessed 19th

February, 2010).

Openshaw, K., (2000). A review ofJatropha: an oil plant of unfulfilled promise.

Biomass and Bioenergy 19: 1-15


11/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

151

Prajapati, N.D. and Prajapati, T., (2005).A hand book of Jatropha Linn.

(Physic nut).Jodhpur: Asian Medical Plants & Health Care Trust

Rao, G. R., Prasad, Y. G., Prabhakar, M., Rao. J. V., Korwar, G. R. and Ramakrishna, Y.

S., (2006). Agro-techniques for Biofuel plantations in Rain-fed Areas Central research Institute for

Dry land Agriculture (ICAR), Hyderabad, p.16.

Tattersall, N., (2007). Malian Weed brings light to mud-hut villages. Reuters, 2007.

Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews (Accessed on 5th

May 2007)

Van Eijck, J., (2006). Transition towardsJatropha biofuels in Tanzania. An analysis with

Strategic Niche Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Technology

Management: Technology and Policy.

Wahl N., Ramni J., Henning B., Cristel M. and Miyuki I., (2009). Economic viability of

Jatropha L. plantations in Northern Tanzania: Assessing farmers prospects via cost-benefit analysis.

World Agroforestry Centre 2009, Working Paper no. 97, Nairobi

Yamba, F. D., (2007). Research Needs and Capacity to Support Opportunities and

Challenges for Biofuel Development South Africa Perspective. CTA Workshop paper, CTA,

Wageningen, The Netherlands

Yuka T. and Swallow B., (2007).Jatropha curcasbiodiesel production in Kenya.

Economics and potential value chain development for smallholder farmers. Working Paper 54. Nairobi.

World Agroforestry Centre.

Tables and figures

Table 1: Estimated annual yields, revenue and variable costs of main crops

Main cropsAverage yield (90 Kg

bags/ acre)

Gross income

(KShs/acre)

Variable costs

(KShs/acre)

Maize 5 4,500 4,290Beans 2 10,000 6,728

Pigeon peas 10 10,000 7,722


12/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

152

Table 2: Estimated annual variable costs ofJatropha cultivation

Variable costs per acre in KShs for different cultivation modes

Age Hedgerow Intercrop* Monocrop*

1 Year 1,225 6,177 10,314

2 Years 900 4,407 8,580

3 Years 275 5,285 7,478

4 Years 178 4,777 8,154

5 Years 150 5,227 8,624

6 Years 130 4,797 8,194

7 Years 130 5,452 9,197

8 Years 100 5,472 9,217

> 8 Years 100 5,472 9,217

* Source ICRAF (2008)

Table 3: Estimated annualJatropha yields

Yields in kilograms per tree for different cultivation modes

Age Hedgerow Monocrop* Intercrop*

Year 1 0.000 0.000 0.000

Year 2 0.009 0.003 0.0004

Year 3 0.012 0.055 0.016

Year 4 0.034 0.077 0.022

Year 5 0.051 0.154 0.045

Year 6 0.073 0.308 0.089

Year 7 0.085 0.385 0.111

Year 8 0.105 0.462 0.134

>Year 8 0.125 0.555 0.165

* Source: ICRAF (2008)

Table 4: Estimated annual gross margin ofJatropha curcas

Gross margins per acre in KShs for different cultivation modes

Age Hedgerow Monocrop Intercrop

Year 1 - 1,225 - 10,314 - 6,617

Year 2 - 768 - 8,542 - 4,400

Year 3 - 104 - 6,653 - 4,935

Year 4 330 - 6,999 - 4,359

Year 5 614 - 6,314 - 4,392

Year 6 964 - 3,574 - 3,127

Year 7 965 - 3,422 - 3,365

Year 8 1,625 - 2,288 - 2,968

>Year 8 1,625 - 900 - 2,463


13/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

153

Table 5: Comparison of annual gross margins of main crops withJatropha

Crop Gross margins in KShs/acre

Maize 210

Beans 3,272

Pigeon peas 2,278

Jatropha (Hedgerow at maturity) 1,625

Jatropha (Intercrop at maturity) - 2,288

Jatropha (Monocrop at maturity) - 2,968

Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the research design

GMCExcel sheetsSPSS

Hypothesis testing

Secondary dataPrimary data

InternetInstitutionsPublicationsInterviewsObservation

WebsitesReportsJournalsBooksHHFarm

Respondent selection

Sampling

method

Data

type

Data

retrieval

methods

Research

tools


14/14



Vol.4, No.8, 2013

154

Figure 2: Comparison of annual Jatropha yields reported in Yatta District to yields from other parts of

the country in the same agro-climatic zone

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8+

Kilogramspertree

Age

Yatta Yields Reported low Reported High

comparison of jatropha curcas profitability to selected crops in

Documents